Maternity leave will owe money if i don't go back to job

jessbrown100

onlyroz wrote: »

:rotfl:
I think the reason that companies won't pay men for additional paternity leave until they have to is because at the mo they'd end up out of pocket. They can reclaim SMP back from the government, but until the law changes they won't be able to do the same for any men wanting to take additional paternity leave. Maybe a few of the more enlightened employers would now, but I think they must be in the minority. Hubby thought that his employer was one of the more enlightened ones - they let him stay off on full pay for 6 months when he had his last knee replacement - but it seems that their generosity only extends so far.

Jessbrown has a point about how these changes will affect male or female dominated companies in different ways. I work in software engineering, which is male dominated - infact I think I'll be the first ever person in my team to take maternity leave. I can just imagine, say, the bosses at a car workshop scratching their heads in bemusement when all the men start asking for extended paternity leave...

LOL, hubby works as a mechanic in a large plant, the only female there is the recruitment woman, think there would be some raised eyebrows if he went in asking for six months paternity leave!:rotfl:

surreysaver

jessbrown100 wrote: »

If you no longer wish women to be seen as a baby's main carer for the first few months of it's life then why bother having maternity leave at all.

So you would rather women go back to being chained to the kitchen sink and not allowed to work in male dominated industries, then? Maternity leave is to look after a baby. After a woman has recovered from the birth anyone can look after it - it doesn't have to be the woman.

jessbrown100 wrote: »

It would seem that in your opinion any interested party (grandparents, aunties and uncles, nursery staff, nannies) could do the 'caring,'

This is what a lot of women already do, as they have to return to work and there is no choice of which parent looks after the child. And men are just as capable as women.

jessbrown100 wrote: »

leaving the woman to pop a few paracetamols for a couple of weeks then head back onto the coalface. This could be taken as SSP and no-one would lose their incomes. This would also be one in the eye for the 'breastfeeding brigade' who you obviously don't have any time for!

The only thing I have against the breatfeeding brigade is thay cause a lot of distress, upset and guilt amongst those women that cannot, or will not for their own reasons, breastfeed. I am not trying to say breast isn't best. But it doesn't need to be shoved down everyone's throats. Also, I was merely stating that a woman can legally go back to work 2 weeks after giving birth. If you take the trouble to read my posts, you will notice that a suitable time I was suggesting was 12 weeks. A woman does not need (except in the uniquest of cases) 12 months to recover from giving birth.

surreysaver

onlyroz wrote: »

:rotfl:
I think the reason that companies won't pay men for additional paternity leave until they have to is because at the mo they'd end up out of pocket. They can reclaim SMP back from the government, but until the law changes they won't be able to do the same for any men wanting to take additional paternity leave.

But they can't claim back from the Government the amount they pay above the SMP rate. So employers who pay more than SMP are providing female staff with a contractural benefit which they do not give males. This could be illegal under the Equal Pay Act - there just hasn't been a test case yet...

surreysaver

jessbrown100 wrote: »

That's great if it works for you, however if a husband could take over maternity leave at four weeks like Surrey saver suggested then would a woman that is a higher wage earner than her husband feel pressurised into doing this for 'the good of the family' and go back before she's ready. At least with the optional six month threshold then the woman is entitled to this time at home to recover physically and mentally. I am not saying that women shouldn't be allowed to go back to work when they choose (far from it) but I am concerned that culturally we are eroding the importance of being able to take time out after birth and that employers encourage this as much as they are able to.

It should be a matter of choice. If you feel you get pressured by your OH, then you need to deal with that, not prevent others from having the choice. I was not, if you read my posts, suggesting that is what should be the norm. But the option should be there if need be - if it is a choice between losing your house because the mother cannot go back to work, or the father taking time off, then that choice should be there, surely?

surreysaver

jessbrown100 wrote: »

I think that my main worry is that women would feel pressured into returning back to work before they are physically or emotionally ready.

Perhaps the one year's Maternity Leave should be compulsory, then? Would that make you happy? Women being forced to take a year off without the option of working?

daphne_descends

surreysaver wrote: »

The only thing I have against the breatfeeding brigade is thay cause a lot of distress, upset and guilt amongst those women that cannot, or will not for their own reasons, breastfeed. I am not trying to say breast isn't best. But it doesn't need to be shoved down everyone's throats. Also, I was merely stating that a woman can legally go back to work 2 weeks after giving birth. If you take the trouble to read my posts, you will notice that a suitable time I was suggesting was 12 weeks. A woman does not need (except in the uniquest of cases) 12 months to recover from giving birth.

With the breastfeeding rates as low as they are, actually it does need reinforcing (not shoving down throats!).

If you choose not to breastfeed, there is no need to feel guilty.
If you are unable to breastfeed, there is no need to feel guilty.

If you make a misinformed choice (believing that you won't produce enough milk in the absence of a medical reason, believing your baby is too big for you to feed, believing that formula is as good as breastmilk) then there is no need to feel guilty but something should be done to stop this happening to other women who otherwise would like to breastfeed.

Breast is not just best, it is physiologically normal, human milk for human babies. You would not believe how many people are unaware that formula comes from cows milk.

Mothering a baby (HOWEVER you feed them) is nothing to do with feminism or being chained to the kitchen sink.

onlyroz

surreysaver wrote: »

But they can't claim back from the Government the amount they pay above the SMP rate. So employers who pay more than SMP are providing female staff with a contractural benefit which they do not give males. This could be illegal under the Equal Pay Act - there just hasn't been a test case yet...

That is a good point, and one which my husband said to me, but I don't think he attempted to push the point at work. I might ask him to mention it to HR, because his company *does* give women full pay for 6 months while on maternity leave. So surely, they should at least offer men full pay minus SMP, which would amount to about 2/3 pay for my husband, I think.

As for breastfeeding, I agree that women should not be made to feel guilty about their choice, but I do also think that fac73 is correct about women making mis-informed choices. I would urge all women to at least give it a go for a few weeks - but that's a separate issue unrelated to this debate.

surreysaver

onlyroz wrote: »

That is a good point, and one which my husband said to me, but I don't think he attempted to push the point at work. I might ask him to mention it to HR, because his company *does* give women full pay for 6 months while on maternity leave. So surely, they should at least offer men full pay minus SMP, which would amount to about 2/3 pay for my husband, I think.

That's exactly the point I made to my lot, but they weren't having it.

Also, I wasn't trying to get into the breastfeeding debate, I was only stating that their voice is partly the reason that Maternity Leave for men is being held up, and when it does go through, it will only be after the first six months. And it seems to depend on where you live as to how much it is shoved down your throat.

surreysaver

fac73 wrote: »

Mothering a baby (HOWEVER you feed them) is nothing to do with feminism or being chained to the kitchen sink.

It is when either men think it is women's work, or indeed women who think that men are incapable of it.

onlyroz

Hubby raised the Equal Pay Act issue with his union rep, and they said that they didn't think the company was breaking the law. He's decided that he doesn't want to pursue it any further, because he's found the whole thing "embarrassing" (his words, not mine), and doesn't want to be seen pursuing extra benefits because of something that was our choice to do. If I was him I might have tried a bit harder, but it's up to him really...